Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 1692
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Rajinder Singh Dogra, Judicial Member, Ram Mohan Johri, Administrative Member
Ahmed Din – Appellant
Versus
State of J&K – Respondent
Transfer Application No. 2337/2020|SWP No. 2860/2019
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. Rahul Aggarwal
For the Respondents: Mr. Sudesh Magotra, Ld. AAG
Prolonged continuous service on sanctioned post by stop-gap employee creates legitimate expectation for regularization despite initial procedural flaws, overriding technical objections post-policy repeals; equity mandates employer ratification and full benefits from seven-year milestone.
Headnote:(A) Service Law - Regularization of ad-hoc/stop-gap employees - Employee appointed on stop-gap basis in 1990 against sanctioned post, rendered continuous service for over 36 years exceeding seven-year threshold under relevant regularization schemes - Initial engagement by competent authority, post remains vacant - Despite departmental recommendation in 2016 for eligibility subject to ratification, regularization denied on technical grounds of procedural irregularity - Such denial amounts to administrative apathy and unfair treatment, violative of legitimate expectation - Post-reorganization repeal of schemes does not extinguish vested rights - Directions issued for regularization from date of completing seven years' service with all consequential benefits. (Paras 6, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13)
(B) Constitutional Law - Article 16 - Irregular initial engagement not de hors rules where on sanctioned post with continuous service; distinguishes short-term casual hires from long-serving incumbents on approved vacancies - Equity mandates post-facto ratification by employer, not employee's burden. (Paras 7, 8)
(C) Legitimate Expectation - Arises from prolonged service, departmental conduct, assurances, and inaction amid vacancies - Binds State against discriminatory denial after decades of dedication, especially for vulnerable employees from backward areas. (Para 9)
Facts of the case:
Employee from humble backward background engaged as Class-IV on stop-gap arrangement from January 1990 against newly sanctioned post, served continuously for 36 years without breaks after initial phase, completed seven years by 1997 entitling under regularization policies, repeatedly represented for relief, recommended eligible in 2016 meeting subject to initial engagement ratification, yet not regularized despite vacancies; respondents opposed citing irregular engagement, no sanctioned post, inapplicability of repealed schemes, and precedents denying rights to temporary workers.
Findings of Court:
Respondents to regularize services forthwith from 01.01.1997 against sanctioned post, ratify initial orders ab initio, grant all benefits including seniority, pay scale, increments, pensionary dues; complete exercise including arrears within three months.
Issues: Whether prolonged stop-gap service on sanctioned post creates enforceable right to regularization despite technical initial irregularities; effect of repealed schemes post-reorganization; applicability of legitimate expectation and equity over strict procedural bars.
Ratio Decidendi: Continuous long service on sanctioned post satisfying policy thresholds, coupled with departmental recommendation and legitimate expectation from conduct, mandates regularization as one-time equitable measure; technical defences collapse against humanitarian relief, misapplication of precedents clarified; recent Supreme Court rulings affirm unfairness in denying benefits to long-serving temporary employees performing essential perennial work.
Result: Transfer Application allowed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner's prolonged stop-gap service facts (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 6) |
| 2. respondents deny regularization eligibility (Para 4) |
| 3. court rejects preliminary objections (Para 5 , 7) |
| 4. misapplication of precedents; equity favors long service (Para 8 , 11 , 12) |
| 5. legitimate expectation survives policy repeals (Para 9 , 10) |
| 6. mandate regularization from 1997 with benefits (Para 13) |
ORDER
Per: - Rajinder Singh Dogra, Judicial Member
1. The SWP No. 2860/2019 was transferred from the Hon’ble High Court of Jammu & Kashmir at Jammu and was registered as T.A No. 2337/2020 by the Registry of this Tribunal.
2. The present matter was filed before the Hon’ble High Court seeking following relief: -
“It is most humbly submitted that an appropriate writ, direction or order may very kindly be issued in the nature of writ of Mandamus commanding the respondents to regularise the service of the petitioner, by giving to him the benefits of SRO-64 of 1994 or otherwise under J&K Civil Services (Special Provision) Act 2010 w.e.f. the date the petitioner completed his Seven years of adhoc/consolidated service with all the consequential benefits including the monetary benefits;
Any other writ, direction or order which in the facts and circumstances of the case this Hon'ble Court deems fit, the same be also granted in favour of the petitioner.”
3. The facts of the case as pleaded by the petitioners in their pleadings are as follows: -
i. The petitioner hails from a very humble and backward family and is also a resident of a remote and backward area Lohai in District Kathua.
ii. The respondent No. 2 vide his No. ES-5/NG/89/6846 dated 4/1/1990 appointed the petitioner as IV Class in stop gap arrangement initially for a period of two months, or till the appointment is regularly made by the department in the pay scale of 600-930. This order was followed by the respondent No. 3, who in compliance to the order of Director Health Services Jammu vide his own Order No. 10270-72 dated 9/1/1990 joined the petitioner and posted him in Primary Health Centre Machhedi against a newly sanctioned post in that Health Centre.
iii. The petitioner right from January 1990 till date is working as IVth Class in the same arrangement during all such period neither ever said post was filled regularly, nor the petitioner's arrangement was ever brought to an end. At the initial stage for some time break of one day was given in the service of the petitioner after 89 days, but subsequently this one day's break was also not observed and followed and the net result of which is that the petitioner for the last about 20 years continuing and performing his duties to the satisfaction of all the concerned continuously and without any break iv. During all such period the petitioner through proper channel have been time and again approaching the respondents for regularisation of his services with all the consequential benefits, but nothing tangible has been done so far. In order to come within the ambit and scope of SRO- 64 of 1994 Seven years continuous Service was required, which the petitioner completed in the month of January 1997, but despite there being dozens of vacancies of IVth Class in the department the services of the petitioners were not regularised although the post against which rather upon which the petitioner continues to work for the last about 20 years is vacant and is available.
v. The Govt. further in order to meet the long pending demands of the incumbents passed an enactment famously known as Jammu and Kashmir Civil Services (Special Provision Act 2010) which came into force on 29/4/2010 and here also Seven Years regular service was the condition precedent for the regularisation, but even after the lapse of 9 years after coming into force of the law of 2010, the grievance of the petitioner remains unsatisfied and unattended.
vi. In its 54th Meeting held on 24/2/2016 to deal with the subject of Regularisation of Adhoc/ Contractual /Consolidated employees and the Annexure-
